Why some people reject evolution

[Danmark]

[you can skip the intro and go right to the last paragraph]

Growing up, I was seldom interested in math. At first it seemed tedious and boring. I invented my own shortcuts to make it easier. Later it required discipline when it got too difficult to do in my head. So, i loved geometry, but lost interest after trig, which I didn't even try to understand. I've been thinking of trying to teach myself calculus, just to see if, at 69 I can do it. So, I looked for a free online course of study and found this:

As Henry Ford said, " Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs ". Too much of the world is complicated by layers of evolution. If you understand how each layer is put down then you can begin to understand the complex systems that govern our world. Charles Darwin wrote in 1859 in his On The Origin of Species,

"When we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond his comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which had a history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, nearly in the same as when we look at any great mechanical invention as the summing of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting, I speak from experience, will the study of natural history become! " http://www.understandingcalculus.com/

So here's the question, do people not believe in evolution just because the Bible tells them so? Or is there another factor; that rather than try to understand it in small steps, one tiny transition at a time, since the entirety of the process ("microbe to man") seems impossible to them, do they reject it out of hand without looking at it step by step?

[otseng]

Evolutionary theory is not restricted to DNA changes. Epigenetics does not conflict with TOE, it helps explain it. Do you have some reference that TOE claims change cannot occur except thru DNA?

Genetic change is foundational to the theory of evolution. I cite brunumb:
It is not possible to produce new species or new genera without changes in DNA.

When we are talking about the ToE, we are talking about the Modern Synthesis. This involves natural selection, genetic variation, and Mendelian inheritance.

I have yet to see any explanation of evolution that mentions change not as a result of genetic modification. I'm not saying that it can't incorporate epigenetics, but I've seen no explanation of the ToE that mentions it.

[otseng]

Otseng as an example [not to reduce him to a mere point ]. He is resolutely well informed, intelligent, logical, honest; therefore, I have to consider his arguments and questions. He reminds me that there ARE critics of evolution who honestly question some of the issues re: TOE.

Thanks.

However, I remain utterly baffled about why such folk are not wholly persuaded by the overwhelming evidence and, while fully maintaining their religious beliefs, do not simply accept that God's creation is more wonderful and mysterious than that indicated in the brief description in Genesis.

I'd like to point out that none of my arguments against evolution have been theological. As a matter of fact, all the sources of my arguments have been from secular sources.

One does not necessarily need to be creationist to question the validity of evolution. And one does not need to believe in the Bible to show how evolution is not very convincing. Interestingly, it is my evolutionist opponents that have brought up theology to support evolution.

If a god had "intelligently designed" eyes they should all be perfectly the same and not have 'defects' or deficiencies from one species to the next.

However, if I were to design some species as a god might, why on earth would I purposely make some of my creations worse at seeing?

Now, of course, there are many people who reject evolution because of their interpretation of the Bible and not because of a serious study of evolution. But it would be fallacious to lump everyone who rejects evolution simply because of their religious beliefs.

Fundamentally, the issue is a conflict of worldviews, primarily between naturalism and supernaturalism. As a naturalist, one has to accept evolution. There is no other alternative. For supernaturalists, it can go either way. They can accept evolution (like theistic evolutionists) or any creation explanation.

Why do Christians reject evolution when they have not studied it? Well, the question can be turned around. Why do people accept evolution when they have not studied it? I simply say because of faith. Faith in believing what people that they trust say is true. If a pastor or Sunday school teacher says it, it must be true. If a scientists says it, it must be true. If Dawkins says it, it must be true.

Digging deeper and studying is hard work. Even just taking the time to post and argue against evolution in this thread takes hours out of my day. Most people are not going to study evolution to that extent. Instead, most are just going to watch college football or see what the Kardashians are up to.

[otseng]

Creationists always seem to employ a dramatically disorganized view of evolutionary theory, as if they suppose that it has to follow some step-ladder function.

This brings up the evolutionary tree. Darwin proposed this in Origin of Species.

I believe this is the only illustration in the entire book.

He proposed a branching tree and all organisms should fit somewhere in this bifurcating tree. (Interestingly, he did not connect all the lines to a single common ancestor.)

If this tree model is correct, then it should be possible to organize all living things into this tree of life. But, after 150 years, it's proving to be difficult to uphold a bifurcating tree model from a single ancestor.

[Danmark]

Otseng:

I'd like to point out that none of my arguments against evolution have been theological. As a matter of fact, all the sources of my arguments have been from secular sources.

One does not necessarily need to be creationist to question the validity of evolution. And one does not need to believe in the Bible to show how evolution is not very convincing. Interestingly, it is my evolutionist opponents that have brought up theology to support evolution.

I agree your arguments have been secular/scientific; however, is it incorrect to say that the usual motivation for creationism and for opposing evolution is to support a religious claim? How many do you know who oppose TOE (in general rather than critique a specific point; evolutionary scientists that)? I have seen NO arguments from you or anyone that are based on scientific observation, that remotely suggest to me "evolution is not very convincing." The more I study it, the more convincing and obvious evolution becomes.

Otseng:

Now, of course, there are many people who reject evolution because of their interpretation of the Bible and not because of a serious study of evolution. But it would be fallacious to lump everyone who rejects evolution simply because of their religious beliefs.

Fundamentally, the issue is a conflict of worldviews, primarily between naturalism and supernaturalism. As a naturalist, one has to accept evolution. There is no other alternative. For supernaturalists, it can go either way. They can accept evolution (like theistic evolutionists) or any creation explanation.

Why do Christians reject evolution when they have not studied it? Well, the question can be turned around. Why do people accept evolution when they have not studied it? I simply say because of faith. Faith in believing what people that they trust say is true. If a pastor or Sunday school teacher says it, it must be true. If a scientists says it, it must be true. If Dawkins says it, it must be true.

Digging deeper and studying is hard work. Even just taking the time to post and argue against evolution in this thread takes hours out of my day. Most people are not going to study evolution to that extent. Instead, most are just going to watch college football or see what the Kardashians are up to.

I also accept and agree with your implicit critique of popular American culture.

I think it involves a false assumption to imply those who accept evolution have not studied it, tho' certainly there are various depths of study. Certainly everyone who attended public school in North America has been taught the basics of evolution. Whether they paid attention is admittedly a different matter. I agree there are probably many who accept scientific principles and general theories without fully understanding them. But, I disagree with labeling this acceptance 'faith.'

Starting when I was about five years old we went to the Woodland Park Zoo on a regular basis. I have a distinct memory of looking at primates (including humans). I noticed their similarities. I remember looking at the face of the gorilla and seeing how much some of his features resembled those of people, with some people sharing almost identical features. Later, in elementary school when we were taught the basics of evolution, it made sense to me. The theory fit with my personal experience. The same is true of all the sciences. They not only integrate well with and reinforce each other, they 'make sense'. So even tho' I understand biology much better than quantum theory, I accept what the experts tell me based not on faith, but on both the track record science has built with me, AND because what I DO understand to some degree.

I cannot say the same about religious claims, even tho' I received religious instruction from before the age of five, and made an assertion of belief by at least the age of seven. However, slowly, as I learned more about the natural world AND about the Bible, the religious claims made less and less sense. Those claims (not just the supernatural ones) contradicted either each other or my sense of logic, or facts about nature, or any and all of those factors.

Therefore, I claim religious 'faith' is of an entirely different order than is acceptance of science.

[benchwarmer]

One does not necessarily need to be creationist to question the validity of evolution. And one does not need to believe in the Bible to show how evolution is not very convincing. Interestingly, it is my evolutionist opponents that have brought up theology to support evolution.

If a god had "intelligently designed" eyes they should all be perfectly the same and not have 'defects' or deficiencies from one species to the next.

However, if I were to design some species as a god might, why on earth would I purposely make some of my creations worse at seeing?

Otseng, let me be the first to apologize if I have somehow lumped you with the usual opponents of evolution. I admit that I assumed you had some theological issue with it somewhere.

You did say you agreed there is 'microevolution' , but you have not answered my question about what exactly this is or why this label really makes any difference.

Digging deeper and studying is hard work. Even just taking the time to post and argue against evolution in this thread takes hours out of my day. Most people are not going to study evolution to that extent. Instead, most are just going to watch college football or see what the Kardashians are up to.

That is certainly true. I don't claim to be an evolutionary biologist or even that well studied on the subject. I have my education and the vast resources of the internet at my disposal which makes me just informed enough to shoot myself in the foot occasionally However, I do think I understand the basics well enough to debate the basic theory.

As I always like to point out, the heart of evolution is simply reproduction and mutations. The fine details of exactly what can be mutated, passed on, etc. is an area I rarely have to start digging in. It seems most 'anti evolutionists' simply think the entire theory is 'bunk' and prefer their biblical stories instead.

Is it hard to wrap ones mind around single cell organisms becoming humans? Sure. The reason probably being that it is hard to wrap ones mind around how long millions (or billions) of years are and what changes can take place in that vast time frame.

Even if there was only one mutation every 10 reproductive cycles, how many mutations would that add up to since the first cell was formed to now? I think once you start multiplying and doing some basic math you realize the vast numbers we're dealing with. Especially when you take into account that these simple cell organisms have 'quick' reproductive cycles. This is a key reason why bacteria are used now for evolutionary experiments in the lab. Google will find you some of these to look into if you like.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 271 by otseng]

I'd like to point out that none of my arguments against evolution have been theological. As a matter of fact, all the sources of my arguments have been from secular sources.

One does not necessarily need to be creationist to question the validity of evolution.

I am interested in hearing what alternative theory you propose that explains the data we have concerning the vast variety and numbers of different species that have existed over billions of years up to now.

[otseng]

Repeatability in this case does not confirm the validity of evolution. Rather, each time eye evolution occurs independently, an explanation needs to be provided each time it occurs. So each time it occurs only compounds the problem. A single eye evolution is hard enough to explain. But for it to occur more than 50 times independently only exacerbates the problem.

Evolution (the theory) is an explanation of a process. If the process is shown to be repeatable, then it seems the theory holds up to scrutiny.

In science, repeatability refers to independent researchers being able to reproduce the the findings of another scientist.

"Reproducibility is the ability to get the same research results using the raw data and computer programs provided by the researchers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

Eye evolution being reproduced multiple times independently by nature does not fall under this. Now, however, if scientists can replicate the evolution of eyes in the lab, that would be evidence of evolution.

I'm pretty sure most of the recent research focuses on genetics not fossils. The fact that both fields agree (albeit with the fossil record missing pieces of course - we don't have every single specimen that ever lived), is a huge indicator that the theory of evolution is correct.

If the fields agree, that would be strong evidence. But, the fields do not agree.

What exactly is 'microevolution' in your words?

Hereditary changes within a species.

What exactly stops this process from resulting in large changes over long time periods?

My burden is not to show what would stop this (though I can get into this). The burden is on evolutionists to show how micro can result in macro.

[otseng]

Bacteria experiments, both on purpose in the lab and alarmingly in the wild i.e. 'drug resistant superbugs', show how evolution takes place right in front of us.

Another point. Research shows that antibiotic resistance was inherent in bacteria long before modern medicine came along. It is not a result of recent mutations that occurred by humans subjecting bacteria to antibiotics. So, drug resistant superbugs is not evidence of evolution taking place in front of us.

antibiotics and antibiotic biosynthetic pathways are believed to have evolved over millions of years suggesting that antibiotic resistance is an equally ancient phenomenon. Indeed, we have recently shown that antibiotic resistance elements were abundant and diverse in ancient DNA dating from the Pleistocene (30,000 years ago). The concept of the antibiotic resistome predicts that resistance is the result of dynamic and competitive microbial interactions that pre-date human use of antibiotics.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0034953

I'm not sure how this is a refutation of evolution of bacteria.

For evolution to have any significance, it requires the development of novel features. If there is no novel feature, then it's not evolution.

In the case of antibiotic resistance, if it can be shown that bacteria did not have antibiotic resistance, then over time, it developed antibiotic resistance, this is a novel feature. But, if the bacteria already had the ability of antibiotic resistance thousands of years ago, it is not a novel feature that is occurring before our eyes.

In order to reproduce, I think all will agree that only organisms that survive long enough to do so will be able to actually do it.

What's happening is that the bacteria that already had the resistance to antibiotics is surviving. What is not happening is that bacteria is acquiring or developing a resistance to antibiotics.

[Danmark]

In science, repeatability refers to independent researchers being able to reproduce the the findings of another scientist.

"Reproducibility is the ability to get the same research results using the raw data and computer programs provided by the researchers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

Eye evolution being reproduced multiple times independently by nature does not fall under this.

Why not? The only difference is that nature, rather than a scientist, demonstrated numerous times that the complex eye develops from light sensitive tissue. This is exactly what evolution predicted. In a very real way evolution is both repeatable and predictable. All we have to do is observe.

The theory predicted we would find evidence of primates that looked similar to both men and other apes. Such evidence has been found, and continues to be discovered. But today, the predictability and reproducibility is getting even more exact.

Recent developments include prediction of reproducible patterns in parallel evolution experiments, forecasting the future of individual populations using data from their past, and controlled manipulation of evolutionary dynamics.
....
The new data and methods paint a more upbeat picture of predictability in evolution, albeit on shorter time scales. They reveal that evolutionary processes show repeatable features: different pathogen populations evolve similar resistance to a given antibiotic, immune systems of different hosts evolve similar receptors against the same pathogen, and cancers are marked across patients by mutations in specific oncogenes.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0077

[Danmark]

For evolution to have any significance, it requires the development of novel features. If there is no novel feature, then it's not evolution.

Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.
Contrary to claims by creationists however, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.
Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution).
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2013/02/macro-evolution/

It seems to me that creationists break the same process into two pieces by simply claiming an arbitrary unit of time as the difference maker. We actually observe the process of evolution within a fraction of a lifetime. Why even postulate that the process suddenly stops when one person's view stops. Isn't that like saying "If I can't see it, it does not exist?" Then with a simple telescope, we see what 'didn't exist.' But then the new claim might arise that nothing exists beyond the range of that telescope... until... a better telescope is developed and employed.

"When even creationists now have been forced to admit evolution is observable, on what basis do they say, "Well it only works over a short period of time."

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... 0_0/evo_48